Thanks, what a great article! A bit pessimistic view. Being epidemiologist, I knew already that there was a poor evidence on how internet helps with the finding "the one"... People should know to never put all eggs in one basket and ofcourse be open to many other opportunities apart from internet.
What this article does not mention is how the internet opportunity to go on different dates helps one to 1. Find out what you exactly want/dont want 2. Get experience in going on dates 3. One learns how to overcome disappointments 4. Keeps the hopes up 5. Boosts confidence level
When I was online dating, I felt proactive and I need that to stay positive. On top of that, I met wonderful people who now I am friends with.
There is definitely lack of evidence, but it still works for some people (two couples that I know are married and have children, they met online). But honestly, people should be smart enough not to limit themselves to the internet... it is not majic and requires commitment, hard work and patience.

Physically flirting is loads of fun and a lot of signals for our attractions to potential mates are not understood. At least when you can see the person and hear them speak - you are much less likely to get nasty surprises. The internet is definitely full of nasty surprises in this regard.

I have tried the internet dating thing. And I think I am one of those people for whom it just does not cut it. First of all people embellish the truth and lie: about their looks, about their status about what they want and about what they need (the last two maybe as a result that they themselves don't know what they want and need). Also, I need to see people in the flesh, I need to look into their eyes, I need to hear their voice. And what you say to someone, how you say it, when and with what outcome is dictated by the above.
I also tend to like curious, courageous individuals that are not afraid to expose themselves and take risks in real life, without seeking the anonymity and comfort of reaching out while sitting on their armchair.
If you want to meet people get off your chair and go out there. The real world is still a very worthwhile place.

Your recommendation makes sense in principle, but in practice the only information you have about some stranger before talking to them is their looks. I tried the bar scene, but almost invariably the person I talked to turned out to be either crazy, stupid, already in a relationship, or not interested. After a while, I understand that people just give up and had rather simply enjoy a nice evening with their friends. Or maybe there's some great place to meet new people that I haven't discovered yet.

Successful matchmaking is based on multiple compatible characteristics of which some are at the surface, but others come only to the surface when problems start. Therefore, a good match can only be when it is based on “faith” and all parties have a “common vision”. Both faith & common vision are missing in this world today. For your information Google “The World Monetary Order”.

If 50% of first marriages end in divorce, the luck of the current system for picking a lifetime partner is 50-50...no different than a coin flip.

40-45% of the general population will suffer from a diagnosable mental illness at some time in their life. Consider the prevalence of alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, obsession compulsion disorders, sex disorders and personality flaws. It is almost half of the population. These people have major problems maintaining relationships and marriage. They cause misery, poverty and unhappiness.

It is no coincidence that divorce rates are 50%.

Your first rule for a marriage partner is not good teeth, beauty, or youth. Rather you must be certain a potential spouse is NOT CRAZY.

Use a psychological screening tool like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). It would make an interesting first date. Then abandon him after dinner. ;)

I have ADHD and my wife was clinically depressed when we married. 6 years later, we are getting along just fine with two children, because we both know and share the fact that if we don't hang together, we hang separately.

I don't think there's any science to the internet algorithms at all, no matter what anybody claims. Internet dating is simply the most efficient way of getting a date with someone who may share similar interests. It beats the hell out of work romances, which could go disastrously wrong in a place you have to go every day. It's a hell of a lot better than going to bars to meet people, where chatting to a stranger could easily be regarded as rude or offensive. Even the old favourite of evening classes are an incredibly inefficient way of finding a partner, although at least if you were unlucky in love, you could always learn to speak Italian or cook well, even if it was only a secondary consideration for enrolling. Indeed, I wonder if the number of people enrolling in evening classes overall has dropped since

Check out this new system: www.attractid.com This is an entirely different approach. People first see each other in the real world, and then, if they are interested and there is "chemistry" they connect online... Instead of suggesting similarities online, attractid.com provides a safe way of making the first connection with attractive people you see in your community but don't already know. The idea is that people instinctively/intuitively are reading each other, and see a lot more than what people post about themselves on the dating sites. Each person in this system is assigned a geographically based ID, and you contact them through this ID. If they are comfortable, they can give you their contact information, or they communicate extensively through the system before they share any details they would not want a stranger to know.

And how is this different from the 'traditional' approach of becoming friends with a new acquaintance on facebook (or just checking out their profile) to monitor what they are up to, start a conversation or simply follow from a distance while you figure out if you are actually interested?

With attractid.com, you don't need to know their name to start up the conversation. You just need to see them and be interested in them. And if they are not interested in getting to know you (or even chatting with you, the system allows them to easily block you.

I agree. But www.attractid.com also allows members to print free cards they can give to people they are interested in. This allows communication to be established without sharing personal info (email, phone, address) until the members are comfortable sharing this information.

Sure. But, how is that different from making a dating-email account that you use for dating purposes only? Don't get me wrong, I like where you're going with this, but I think we have to think harder about this one.

Matchmaking on the internet has been extraordinarily successful in India, where arranged marriages are the rule.
The matchmakers and friends were sufficient in earlier times when people lived in villages.
Now they are scattered over India and abroad. But People still want matches from their community which was scattered over a few villages in the past.
Internet sites like Indiamatrimony and shaadi have provided a platform for exchange of information between parents leading to a great number of alliances.
Example of adoption of new technology to preserve the old practices.

I think Financial Times (FT) had an article on the algorithm of Match.com. FT said that the site matched people based NOT on what they say they want, but based on what people were actually doing online.
For instance, if you say that you want to date a white caucasian with income USD 150,000+, but keep stalking on people of other races with lower income (with tracable traits), the algorithm may suggest you someone from out of your request.
Weak Axiom of Revealed preferrences at work?

I like the way the article ends: yes- it is always best to speak to the person who caught your eye, despite the shyness of making the first move. Just think how many missed opportunities there are- something that is part of being young.

Many are too shy or unable to make the first move or contact. Online dating breaks the ice since the aim of being on is for the very purpose of meeting where otherwise each would have remained frustrated at his corner.
Once you make your choice, based on physical look and other provided details such as age, education, location, preferences, etc. then chemistry has to kick in.
I found a mate and also made few interesting acquaintances through online dating site in relatively short time but also know about others who are looking for a long time in vain.

Perhaps the biggest scam in the online dating business, at least in the United States, is a Web site called eHarmony. They claim to match people using pseudo-psychological personality tests, which are not more useful than other dating Web sites such as Match.com. Indeed, eHarmony is an old obsolete site, whose success rate is reported to be less than 10 percent. The majority—over 90 percent of its members—are not going to achieve a long-term relationship with commitment (or marriage) using the site.

It is only supported by a big marketing budget—for example, they pitch potential customers with advertising that suggests that they are somehow more sophisticated and reliable, when they are not—and not by serious scientific evidence. They cannot prove that their algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships (and very low divorce rates) than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, or searching on one's own.

It is really nothing more than an elaborate ruse to hook people into paying hefty monthly fees and believing in fantasies. They prevent users from seeing photos of candidates until such users have subscribed, when in fact a photo tells a thousand words, and would allow the users to determine quickly whether there is any physical chemistry at all or not. Also, they offer free days for non-payers to entice them to join, but do not show any photos, which is tantamount to buying a pig in a poke. Class action lawsuits have been brought against the company and its management already; and more should be brought on behalf of all people who have been defrauded by them.

Match.com, at least in America, is still the "gold standard" for pay-as-you-go dating Web sites. For a male standpoint, it attracts lovely women; and it provides enough information to make intelligent choices. However, new sites have come along such as OKCupid and Plenty of Fish, which are free and gaining traction rapidly.

In the final analysis, the issue will be how long relationships established online actually last; and whether online relationships are really the future. Because all of the testing on earth will not produce the vital ingredient, "chemistry," it is left to photos and profiles to do that. In essence, all of the sites are nothing more than "beauty contests," and the people who use them are apt to have fantasies and illusions that carry over into the relationships that are formed. Users put their best feet forward; and when the facade drops, and reality hits, it may do so with a thud.

The concluding paragraph of this article is accurate:

“[L]ove is as hard to find on the [I]nternet as elsewhere. . . . [Y]ou may be just as likely to luck out in the local café, or by acting on the impulse to stop and talk to that stranger on the street whose glance you caught, as you are by clicking away with a mouse and hoping that, one day, Cupid’s arrow will strike.”

I doubt if there are 'alogrithms' to cover the complex variables in a human and his or her happiness through marriage and sex. Folks have been observed to change their views, and even their 'chemistry', of what they like in a partner as they age.

Every marriage, when contracted voluntarily, begins well, does it not? But outlook changes as well as, perhaps, circumstances, so marriages break down.

Happy marriages, no doubt, require tolerance, restraint on selfishness - in other words, a sense of sacrifice for a greater good - perhaps, children and so on.

But, I have seen marriages fail, despite such fine qualities on display, often, from one of the spouses. I had wondered if such marriages should really have lasted as long as they did.

A lower divorce rate does not mean there is enviable marital happiness, although high divorce rates often hurt the children.

OKCupid has a completely open matching algorithm. They also distinguish a "match" from a "friend"; the different seems to be that matches answer the questions like you want them to answer them while a friend answers the questions the same as you do. A high friend score and low match means you are too much alike, while a high match with a low friend score suggests a situation where opposites attract.

The interesting thing is that they dig into the answer to conduct their own studies about dating and such. I'll have to find this study to see if they looked at OKC, but if not they should see if they can get permission to use their data base.

It all boils down to Chemistry. Can't measure it, predict it, or bottle it. It just IS. That's why the questionnaires don't work, why people end up with those who don't necessarily possess the characteristics they said they wanted.

Taking the time to be totally open and present with fellow humans one encounters helps a ton also. If you judge the book solely by the cover, you're apt to miss a phenomenal story.

That said, there's a phenomena called "thin-slicing" ("Blink", by Caldwell) where you subconsciously but immediately intuit cues based on your accumulated experience. It's an inner "knowing" that ought to be trusted.

All of the above require face to face interaction. How one gets the face in front of you is the least of it.

Very interetsing article as long the match goes well. There are million who wed in the net and are happy.Then we have this. I am sorry it may be irrevant but this is what puts amnt off. The politics, and Religion, Sunday, 12 February 2012 What do we have as a surprise today the Holy day besides the sermons many half listen as the life gets more difficult? U.S. Catholic Church leaders said they will fight President Barack Obama's controversial birth-control insurance coverage policy despite his compromise that religious employers would not have to offer free contraceptives for workers, shifting the responsibility to insurers. In an abrupt policy shift aimed at trying to end a growing election-year firestorm, Obama on Friday announced the compromise. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its concerns were not addressed and cited "serious moral concerns." In a statement issued Friday evening, the bishops said Obama's proposal "continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions." Aha the gays the lesbians, etc. What a day? I don't get the issue. The choice is still up to the employee as to whether or not to get the contraception. I thought America is based on (according to you NEOCONS) the freedom of individual choice. The White House is ensuring that this choice exists in all institutions that provide a health care option. It is still up to the individual to choose to take the contraception or not. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

This is off topic. Obama’s abuse of our Constitution has nothing to do with computer matching. He will be defeated November 2012, or America will be defeated. Lets leave this man out of this conversation.